Levram__

I heard that literally right up until the lead up to Christmas that there was multiple final containers of theming arriving for install and placement.

I think you'll find its just been sheer luck verses a great idea...

I have to agree after watching that video they have done a remarkable job with this project. The detail, the difference in elevation on the vintage cars path of travel to give you the sense of realism, scale and wow factor. Not to mention, sound and lighting that will also only positively contribute to the immersion. I'm just as excited to ride Murrissippi Motors as I'm Jungle Rush. When I look at the footage/photos we have seen of both Rivertown and WOZ, I feel like Dreamworld have defiantly executed the themed land to a high level, covering the entire area in great detail. Where as the ride areas for the two WOZ coasters seems pretty sparce and undercooked? Maybe the stations and queue areas will make up for that but i feel like Rivertown is genuinely a much more well rounded execution.

Agree, this is a more accurate depiction of an insurers influence. You will often find that the "suggestion" or sometimes influence can come from the risk assessors for the particular underwriter. I've dealt with these particular roles within my role in the industry on a number of occasions.

They have nothing to do with it.

Gosh they haven't aged well!

This is correct accessibility played a part however the arcade was in the mix well before First Aid was even considered being moved. The arcade was originally an Intencity project that was being scoped post pandemic. However its my understanding Intencity dropped it, the site sat dormant longer than originally anticipated and the project was pick up by VRTP as a capex project. The scope then grew to encompass the relocation of First Aid with improved facilities/services, an indoor ambulance bay and new BOH space/offices for other shared services for the parks.

I think the other thing to consider here is that DW aren't trying to be something their not and also why should they. Its often talked about in their shareholder calls that the park scores rather favourably with their NPS and GRI scores, particularly when it comes to their seasonal event offering. This gives them a pretty healthy understanding of what their primary consumer (guest) wants. Personally I also don't think spending $250K plus with someone like an Oracle Liquid (not including the other labour/entertainment costs for the show) is going to improve their overall ROI for the event if a laser light show is primarily what your using as a basis for the difference in offering.

I believe you'll find a lot of their marketing is purely via social mediums and BVOD. Which likely works for them as a seasonal operator. Season passes would contribute to a significant amount of their ticketing revenue/visitation so the need to do broader interstate or intrastate advertising is likely not worth the cost.

The other factor at play here is that each of the businesses that form part of the Major Amusement Park Safety Case are required to outline their own commissioning standard in the safety case outline. Its likely not to state the specific number of cycles in the outline but I know first hand that supporting documents for one particular property does outline a minimum number of cycles as part of the commissioning process. 500 cycles for example may sound like a lot but that figure can be tracked from the initial commencement of commissioning while the OEM still holds ownership of the ride, the figure is also not an unlikely benchmark.

I don't believe you'll find the property shutting down anytime soon. There would also be some complications (not impossible to navigate however) about the lease use of the land to which the site sits on. You can't forget that Palace purchased the park for a bargain. Even better so than their original offer the year prior. Following the acquisition and change over period they drastically right sized their shared service side of the business and slimed down their P&L making it a profitable 'regional water park' in the eyes of its owners. With that being said its likely to continue that way, a regional/seasonal style water park that continues to plot along with occasional commercial capex that has guaranteed ROI. But id be shocked if we saw any sort of significant new investment anytime soon unfortunately.

It will most certainly be a Village operated venue. Its been in serious development discussions since at least 2021. I believe back then however it was being driven more so by the Village Entertainment side of the Melbourne side of the Village business, with a VRTP hand holding. But that has since changed is my understanding with Topgolf being solely under the VRTP corporate structure.

Ohh the SA regulator is a whole different kettle of fish. Particularly how the transportables are considered versus the other states.

I don't have a definitive answer for if or when the last 10 yearly major inspection was completed.

@New display name you're correct it does form part of the new legislation and the code of practice. However the other factor at play with some of these older devices is if a 10 yearly has even been completed previously. The amusement device will have most likely have had, and satisfied all of its OEM milestone inspections over the course of its life, but the level and detail required from a 10 yearly may not have been met. Also an engineer may suggest a change to the interval between inspections, however that would also require support from the OEM and agreeance by QLD WPHS engineering as part of a licensed major amusement facility. Specifically for QLD. This obviously differs state by state.

@Brad2912 your defiantly on the money here, the announcement is believed to be something far bigger than a gyro swing replacement. The Claw now approaching its 20 year anniversary would require either one of two things to occur. A 10 yearly inspection to be completed over the course of the next 12 months which would be a significant closure period. Or depending on the capital spend required as part of the ongoing R&M (10 yearly) it might make sense commercially to replace/upgrade the asset, the latter of the two defiantly being the option undertaken. These considerations where also hinted at in the recent FY earnings call. My money however is on a high thrill new coaster....

Dreamworld have launched date specific single day entry tickets. Tickets are valid for Dreamworld only for the specific date purchased. Pricing can vary from $79. Flexible 1-day Dreamworld entry tickets can still be purchased and used during any one day over the 12 months from purchase date, however at a higher price point. Is this the start of date based visitation for our parks? It seems as though the model serves as a dynamic pricing strategy also which could end up having a positive guest experience impact during busier periods!

I believe its possible the parade floats could soon commence their journey from the show stage, which is why the WWF sign has been removed and new speakers/lighting installed?

I noticed on a visit to Luna Park at the end of the school holidays they seem to be doing a lot of refurbishment works to the park. The entrance has been covered in scaffold for a complete refresh the staff said, there is a huge build happening in the centre of the park, which I believe used to be their arcade and Dodgems. The Enterprise and the Ferris Wheel looked like they just had complete repaints, new colour scheme with the cars on the Enterprise and a new ride booth. Despite all the works there were quite a few nice little refreshed parts to the park.

I do know for certain. Additionally @DaptoFunlandGuy observations are also correct regarding the finished state.

Gone for good!

Unfortunately organisations that provide these documents don't provide them for free, and the average joe who isn't building amusement devices isn't going to fork out $249 to satisfy curiosity. If anyone has a copy, (i'm assuming section 2.8 would be the relevant section here) feel free to post it. It forms part of AS 3533.4.3 and is also referenced to as part of an amusement devices class requirements. It was initially permitted, you're not mistaken. Either someone didn't read the manual correctly and it was pointed out later, or a later audit \ review identified it as an issue and the procedure changed. It was due to a safety bulletin issued by Mack in 2020 that resulted in the change of the harness inspection wording in their SOP's. Firm push/pull inspection of the lap-bar/restraint without the insertion of the seat belt to occur first to insure the cylinder test is successful. Followed by the insertion of the seat belt and final inspection to ensure the seat belt is fasten and pulled tight. Exactly what is outlined in the excerpt above from Bluefire, however this is not original copy. In addition to the SOP change, as part of the safety bulletin park engineering were required to conduct additional immediate inspections of the cylinders due to a risk of failing solenoids. MW operations choose to insert the seat belt themselves to ensure the lap-bar/restraint without the seat belt occurs correctly. It would be rather counter productive to inspect all restraints, ask guests to then insert their own seat belt and conduct another full train inspection for the seat belts. In the same year (2020), Mack introduced the option of the RFID operator scanner as an additional measure to ensure that an individual inspection of each restraint is registered. DW adopted this solution on ST. It was never stated however it is believed that a near miss incident occurred overseas that prompted the safety bulletin.

Its using a lot more than just the corner of the building. Its got an internal ambulance bay, additional bed capacity, new and expanded facilities, business services for team member use such as rehabilitation etc. Its quite an expansive growth and is needed.

Its unlikely to open by the 26th. Your looking at possibly early May, the attraction hasn't been handed to Operations yet which will involve quite a bit of training and commissioning to establish an opening roster.

Its a Vekoma design change to address station design challenges identified in the original inception. Better access for authorised personnel, more suitable placement based on MOCC and OCC locations, operational station design and flow etc. The connection bridge is not standard however, it is an add on. Likely chosen to support inspection and access efficiency.